That's one opinion. Others might suppose that you wish to substitute sacred knowledge for genuine moral behavior, which, in my humble opinion, recognizes the diminished nature of the moral claims of fetuses, compared to mothers, who happen to be fully vested citizens, not potential citizens after someone invests 1/3 of a lifetime in them.
Again with the citizenship business. You keep on repeating it in post after post and obviously have invested a great deal of emotional capital in this argument, yet when others point out the moral pitfalls of using this as your ethical lodestar you refuse to comment on them?
Perhaps my earlier post was a bit too detailed so let me present another instance that might be simpler to address. There is pending now in a court in a city not too far from mine a case wherein a citizen may have his citizenship stripped because of his involvement in earlier crimes against humanity. Now, if this person loses his citizenship, and thus becomes someone who is no longer a fully vested citizen, and is even in a lesser class than preborn or newborn children, because he is no longer even a potential citizen, are any moral claims that he might make as diminished, or moreso, than unborn children? If so, then, since evidently by your moral compass those same diminished moral claims of unborns make them fair game for abortion, could this individual then be given a late-life abortion (i.e., killed)? If so, would those doing the killing and those who aid in it, just like the abortionist and mother of an aborted child, escape legal sanctions and moral culpability? If not, why?